Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica

[H simmens]



This article provides the author an opportunity to declare war on Geo engineering by for example claiming that scientists estimate that Geoengineering will cost “on the order of tens of trillions of dollars”. 

Nice to know that we can count on the media to be fair and balanced. 

Herb

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/03/hansen-vs-mann-is-global-warming-linear-or-exponential/

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

[Jim Baird]

Herb, at about 14:30 minutes of the Intimate Conversation YouTube Hansen says the annual cost of CDR is now between 3.5 and 7 trillion, and the cost of the decrease of aerosols is $115 to $230 trillion. So I don’t you can put this on the media.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3D131483-011F-4A9A-9B2D-3BA99C9A9F05%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gilles de Brouwer]

My comment left on the article:

Steve I like your writing, but "Trillions" is obviously wrong.  Billions is more realistic even with expensive new high altitude aircraft, but maybe much less expensive with a small fleet of specialty airships.

All the SAI geoengineering risks are scare mongering without data to back it up and such dogma unscientific opinions from "scientists" are damaging to science as an institution.  AI, for example genetic algorithms or better could design an SAI strategy that minimizes the negatives, as it's an optimization problem with infinite variables which is why progress is so slow.  Coupling computational models with small scale real atmosphere experiments with full public data access for review is critical to make a smart decision to potentially avoid billions starving, cooking, and/or dying of thirst, or migrating.

Thanks,
Gilles de Brouwer      

[Jim Baird]

From the Physics and Economics of Thermodynamics Geoengineering, reference 77 of  the Healthy Climate Action Coalition Petition to World Leaders: The Case for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling, The cost of removing 1139 Gt of CO2  with this technology (Negative Emissions CO2 OTEC) would therefore be $175 trillion. CDR technology for creating synthetic fuel from atmospheric CO2 or for other purposes currently costs about $600 per ton, with a goal of reducing this to below $100. [48] So, a goal of returning atmospheric CO2 levels to preindustrial  from a 2054 level of 1577 Gt is likely to cost at a minimum $114 trillion. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAGQ2tEqsU%3Drm7ZJpo4p67O9p-HHL0f_%3Dq9Xd2Q5nj6bLUFvkqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gilles de Brouwer]

A low cost SAI option?

Regarding the trillions or billions to do SAI geoengineering, consider this option:

Watch "How ramjets may change the role of artillery on the battlefield" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/0vIPNElDkns?si=9Z_mUQUXBm-4dBxF 

At 4:21 you can see the 150km range parabolic trajectory goes as high as 105km altitude!

Maybe Iowa battleship 16 inch guns with this ramjet tech could send stuff to orbit.

Or could this be a low cost SAI geoengineering option? 

1. How much would it cost to refurbish and send these old battleships to the Arctic and Antarctic waters and deliver to much higher altitudes?  The armor plating would make the battleships iceberg damage resistant.

2. How much longer would the particles stay at useful altitudes?

3. Would they stay in place much longer with little wind at these very high altitudes?

4. Would it be more effective than aircraft delivered SAI?

Note from the Iowa Class Wikipedia page: "...all four are museum ships part of non-profit maritime museums across the US."

Gilles

[robert...@gmail.com]

Can someone do the following calculations?  How many shells?  How much material would they consume each year?  What happens to the shell casings once they've delivered their load?  What environmental impact would these discarded shell casings have and in particular would they contain any environmentally undesirable materials?  What would be necessary for this to receive social licence?

Regards

Robert

On 05/11/2023 18:22, Andrew Lockley wrote:

I've already looked at this. The meteor missile (modern) and blood hound (cold war) use ram rockets. Nammo make ram artillery, and there's Chinese manufacturers, too. It's not inexpensive to start these ramjets, considering rockets or barrel wear. Coil guns might be viable. There's manufacturers eg velontra.com making small hypersonic jets, which don't require a hard start.

Ballistic flight makes recovery difficult. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAGQ2tEq6GP68_404MZonwgf4NZFypGLHeTzcvK0V%3DNPoZEMEWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAJ3C-05sBDn1Bf5JgCiKxHeXLfaWjVQRP7T-VZK_zKTGDgnf8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hugh Hunt]

Hi Robert,

We addressed this in our 2012 paper here, for SPICE

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/SPICE/papers/PhilTransRoySoc_LiftingOptions_Davidson_Burgoyne_Hunt_Causier.pdf

delivery by Aircraft we get as around £100bn, and artillery is around £1trillion - see Fig 8

Hugh

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 6:56 PM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/336a4349-a5b8-4b96-b456-78d50e98f480%40gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Thanks Hugh.  I knew this had been addressed previously and you saved me the trouble of locating the paper.  Someone might want to spend a little time updating the figures you developed for artillery shells to take account of any advances over the last decade.  It seems unlikely that this would make them look any more feasible.  Ditto for aircraft. 

Regards

Robert

[robert...@gmail.com]

Doug

Do you think any of the work covered by Davidson et al in the paper, a link to which was earlier circulated by Hugh Hunt (co-author)?  They seemed to conclude that the engineering realities strongly favoured tethered balloons.

Regards

Robert

On 05/11/2023 19:01, Douglas MacMartin wrote:

Broadly speaking I don’t think the direct delivery cost of material to the stratosphere is a significant factor influencing any decision to deploy.  (Vs, for example, the expected geopolitical ramifications of a choice, the projected impacts, or the costs associated with any fund to compensate those who believe that they will be harmed by deployment).  Aircraft have consistently wound up as the cheapest approach to deliver material based on today’s technology, though of course that could change.

 

Also relevant in thinking about alternate delivery mechanisms though is that aircraft engines are currently manufactured by only a few companies all in a handful of countries, and none of these manufacturers would sell any engine to anyone without at least tacit approval by the country they are in… that greatly limits the number of countries that are capable of deploying, so alternative engines or delivery modes may be more important in thinking about governance challenges associated with who is actually capable of initiating a deployment that has the potential to be scaled and sustained.

 

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of robert...@gmail.com

Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/336a4349-a5b8-4b96-b456-78d50e98f480%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/DM6PR04MB71000CD3938EE6F209560AC38FABA%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Hugh Hunt]

Robert et al,

That paper from 2012 was written in the context of the day - the idea of using aircraft for delivery was de-facto the only and the obvious solution.  But it had not been properly evaluated. or costed  It's probably fair to say that we were rocking the boat a bit, and the tethered balloon idea came out on top.  Who knows, it may still be a good solution.  But along the way we did our best to evaluate the various alternatives such as airships and superguns.  The only one that's a non starter is tall towers.  We put in on there because there was a paper published at the time that was promoting a tower on the top of Everest.  I cannot imagine any world in which tall towers for the delivery of aerosols would work.

I think you're right, it would be good to re-evaluate all these options.

Hugh

 

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 10:23 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; robert...@open.ac.uk <robert...@open.ac.uk>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>

Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [prag] RE: [geo] Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/fe88486d-c20d-4b5f-82a0-f50c181346e8%40gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

Helpful comments from Hugh to put this paper in context.  However there is one observation in the paper that struck me as remarkably powerful in support of the case for tethered balloons.  This is the only method for lofting the aerosol precursors that required the lifting of only those materials to the stratosphere.  That would, at least superficially, suggest a vastly less energy and materials intensive engineering solution than one that requires thousands of sorties of heavy aircraft to fly up there just to drop off relatively small payloads on each occasion.

Regards

Robert

[Ye Tao]

I agree that balloons would be much superior to planes.  This is not only because of energy and material costs, but also the lack of stratospheric NOx and H2O injection from aircraft engine exhausts.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/7ff7051a-28df-4f94-873b-415d74899c52%40gmail.com.

[Ben Ballard]

Plus they exist now.

On Nov 6, 2023, at 2:14 AM, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/427d0c28-bbe4-4f48-bdf0-54e528eb51ed%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Hugh Hunt]

Ben, I don't think anyone has tethered a balloon at 20km. And if ever they do then they have to figure how to pump stuff up the tether. These are the two big challenges. Hugh

---

From: Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>; Hugh Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk>; Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; robert...@open.ac.uk <robert...@open.ac.uk>; Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>

[Ben Ballard]

Load it, launch it, release, winch it back down, repeat (same as for aircraft). 

On Nov 6, 2023, at 4:17 AM, Hugh Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:



[Ben Ballard]

Perhaps Ms. Sykopetritou could shed some light - she’s studied this extensively, and we could invite her to one of our meetings. 

Ben

On Nov 6, 2023, at 6:33 AM, Ben Ballard <benwb...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Douglas Grandt]

Hugh,

Excellent considerations.

Perhaps the U.S. military has done some experimenting at higher altitudes than what I observed 16 miles west of I-80 exit 62 “Military Area Lakeside.”

I spotted 2 or 3 stationary dots hovering in the far distance beyond and above a mountain east northeasterly as I drove from Salt Lake City toward the setting sun at 6:30-6:50pm on March 13, 2013.

I took several photos at exit 49 at Clive.

I think that the U.S. military would deny knowledge or simply ignore anybody’s inquiry, unless it were a person with appropriate credentials.

I’m convinced they are several steps ahead of us and a compelling case can be made to convince them of the urgency we see.

I imagine there are a few among us who might have suitably situated contacts who could give us access to relevant research.

Best,

Doug Grandt

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Nov 6, 2023, at 4:17 AM, Hugh Hunt <he...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/LO4P265MB39013D75F18AEE12C0C95E98B0AAA%40LO4P265MB3901.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Douglas Grandt]

Oops, I got my east and west reversed

Should be west northwesterly

far distance beyond and above a mountain east northeasterly as I drove from Salt Lake City toward the setting sun

Apologies,

Doug

[Ye Tao]

I'd be interested to learn more.   

Why not couple balloon with wind energy harvesting?  Basically let the balloon out during high wind and drag them back during slower wind.  Might consider a shape-changing sail in the tropospheric portion of the tether to modulate drag and change pulling directions.

Ye

[Alan Kerstein]

Inspired by Lifting options for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering: advantages of tethered balloon systems by Peter Davidson, 

Chris Burgoyne

, 

Hugh Hunt

 and 

Matt Causier  and discussion thereof, I propose to add the chimera described in the attached document to the taxonomy of SAI technologies.

Alan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/e7495334-bba1-48ff-a137-4ca344a7dccf%40rowland.harvard.edu.